549 réponses à ce sujet

[abaris]

Wonderllama4 wrote...

User reviews are worth less than nothing

And professional reviews are all the rage?

Once again, look at user ratings of previous Bioware titles. High in their 8s and 9s up until DAII. Are these reviews worthless too?

There's a pattern emerging once Bioware started "catering to a broader audience".

Modifié par abaris, 24 mai 2012 - 06:01 .

[Siansonea]

I would rate ME3 as about a 6.5 or a 7. Don't get me wrong, it's an enjoyable game, and it had some great moments, but it retroactively cheapened the first two games and rendered them meaningless BEFORE the ending. And multiplayer is fun—but that's not the game I thought I was buying. If anything, multiplayer is the "consolation prize", to mollify people. The ending was atroche, but the way the previous games' choices were completely neutered makes ME3 a huge fail for me. Forget Catalyst, I have a much bigger problem with the Rachni Queen and the doppelgänger Coucilors. Oh, and ME2? Turns out chasing the Reapers nigh-obsolete minions probably wasn't the best use of Shepard's time and resources, since they were just trying to complete their little library project, and meanwhile actual fully-developed Reapers were making tracks for the outer edge of the galaxy. And Collector Station? Pfft. Whatever.

[Rip504]

napushenko wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has 3.8 rating on metacritic. 3.8 ! 
Does anyone agree with that and why ? I personally cant stand it. Its a superb game, better then any in the series imo till that last couple of minutes. 3 point fckng 8.  And some things i read in reviews were so unthrutfull it hurts. 

What rating would you give it ? Its a strong nine in my opinion, but i just gave it 10 to try & counter these 1 rating trolls 

If you believe it is a 9 and gave it a 10,you just trolled the score. As you put it. So dismissed. ME3 is lucky to have a 3.8 IMO.

Maybe people are also taking the Bioware devs and EA into account when rating this game. Which is completely acceptable since they have a great deal to do with the game.

Other then that,the game is BROKEN and UNFINISHED,how in the world can you give a broken and unfinished product a 9 or 10? I say somewhere around 6-7 at best.

A 9-10 score would mean ME3 is damn near perfect with virtually no glitches. That is a laughing matter IMO.

                                                                              .:lol:.

Modifié par Rip504, 24 mai 2012 - 06:55 .

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

6 is already generous.

[0x30A88]

It's 1 to 10, yet people seem to be entirely black and white about it, forgetting everything good after seeing the ending, etc...

Also, most people who do user reviews seem to be the angry kind with a lot of hate on their mind. I would give it 7/10, but I would never bother to go writing a review.

Maybe even 6/10 is what I would give it. ME2 was polished and a wonderful game, as the enviroments looked good, and not with rough edges like ME3 was on occation. There were small side quests with their own level layouts that maybe 90% didn't see, while ME3 reduced many war assets to pressing a button near a planet in the galaxy map. Also, ME3 was a bit sloppy with minor characters, while ME2 even had a lot of variation on the non-human minor characters.

It's a good game overall and it has a lot to offer, but ME2 set the bar for minor content and polish too high for ME3 to keep up to with its short development time.

(Mild spoilers ahead)
I do not put emphasis on the endng here, but it was quite short and open for speculation, but "space grandpa" made sure that the speculations for a rebuild of a working intragalactic transport method was discarded by in-game canon. If they didn't have "space grandpa" and had some clarification on what the hell happens next would have a chance at redeeming the ending in my opinion.

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 24 mai 2012 - 09:59 .

[0x30A88]

Wonderllama4 wrote...

User reviews are worth less than nothing

While professional reviewers' value can be measured in american dollars.

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 24 mai 2012 - 10:00 .

[DaJe]

Gisle Aune wrote...

It's 1 to 10, yet people seem to be entirely black and white about it, forgetting everything good after seeing the ending, etc...

Also, most people who do user reviews seem to be the angry kind with a lot of hate on their mind. I would give it 7/10, but I would never bother to go writing a review.

Maybe even 6/10 is what I would give it. ME2 was polished and a wonderful game, as the enviroments looked good, and not with rough edges like ME3 was on occation. There were small side quests with their own level layouts that maybe 90% didn't see, while ME3 reduced many war assets to pressing a button near a planet in the galaxy map. Also, ME3 was a bit sloppy with minor characters, while ME2 even had a lot of variation on the non-human minor characters.

It's a good game overall and it has a lot to offer, but ME2 set the bar for minor content and polish too high for ME3 to keep up to with its short development time.

(Mild spoilers ahead)
I do not put emphasis on the endng here, but it was quite short and open for speculation, but "space grandpa" made sure that the speculations for a rebuild of a working intragalactic transport method was discarded by in-game canon. If they didn't have "space grandpa" and had some clarification on what the hell happens next would have a chance at redeeming the ending in my opinion.

Well yeah, it comes down to a "I like" or "Sucks". Thats how rating on youtube works for a while now and honestly it works pretty good. It gives you the general gist of it, the collective emotion of players rather than intellectual articles with well thought out articles.

In the end what matters is: Does this game make people happy? Do they feel satisfied with their purchase?

In this case the answer is no and that is a big no. You can have the best ingredients and still screw up the meal. The end result, the feeling with which people leave this game and franchise is what matters.

Only a fool would ignore the emotional rating of their customer base.

[SalsaDMA]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Interestingly enough, ME3 has a higher average on Metacritic for Xbox than the other platforms (5.0 as opposed to 4.0).

Draw whatever conclusion you will from that.

Personally I would guess Origin had an impact on the desirability of the game for PC users. I know it certainly stopped me from bothering getting it on PC. Thus I wouldn't count against that having a hit on the score as it is forced into being part of the product by EA.

[xsdob]

Review for the new rebellion dlc from metacritic.

"Not singleplayer" 0 score.

"Vorcha are stupid, breaks lore" 0 score.

"Pheonix class wasn't prothean" 0 score.

"I don't play multiplayer" 0 score.

"Gears is better" 0 score.

"I didn't get the character card I wanted from the first pack" 0 score.

"BIotic whip too awesome for a ****ty game like this" 0 score.

[Miekkas]

I don't think that it deserves a 3.8, but it certainly does not deserve a 9 or 10 like many of the "professional" reviews gave it. It has a number of problems that make it inferior to the overall quality of ME2:

1. Day One DLC/ Lack of Priorities: Everyone knows by now that Bioware has denied that the "From Ashes" DLC is on the disks even though it has been proven that at least some of the content from the DLC is on the disk. Now, it is certainly possible that they really did just run out of time, but we have to question why they ran out of time, especially when they took the time to ensure that characters like Diana Allers aka Jessica Chobot were fully integrated into the game. Not only should we question this, but also we should wonder why they charged full price when it was already partially completed.

2. Multiplayer. I would not have minded multiplayer if it were not for the fact that they promised that multiplayer would not detract from single player, but it is blatantly obvious that they designed the N7 mission maps to be used in multiplayer as well due to their sandbox format compared to the standard map format in missions. The N7 missions are not on the same high standard as the ME2 missions. Let's also not forget how the multiplayer Packs are based entirely on chance. The reason for this can be found in the fact that you can purchase Packs using Microsoft Points. They did this to prey on those who become  invested in the game and want to try and unlock what they want as soon as possible. By using this method, even if they release MP DLC for free, they will almost certainly see an increase in Pack purchases with Microsoft Points. It is really rather....sly if you think about it. Look up on youtube the EA CEO's stance on microtransactions. It will make even clearer what I am talking about.

3. Reusing assets. Tali's face and the snowfall epilogue. Even though they have tried to justify Tali's face by saying they wanted to give her the same treatment as the other characters, the fact of the matter is that her face is shown by a copy pasted photoshop picture, not an in-game animated model like everyone else, Miss Jessica Chobot included.

4. The journal. It never updates and is extremely vague at times when in past games they were specific down to the nebula, system, and planet. In this game, half the time they don't even give you the planet, and the other half they only give you the planet, so you're wandering the dozens of systems in the game looking for the right planet.

5. The mountain of bugs. The most infamous is of course the face import issue, which they claimed to have fixed after a month of working on the patch.....but it is still not fixed. The bugs are everywhere, some of which are game breaking. It's been two months since the release of the game, although there are whispers of a possible patch on Priestly's Twitter. I expected this from a Bethesda game due to the massive scope of the game, but not from a Bioware game.

All of these problems in my opinion don't outweigh some of the high points of the series like the more fluid combat and great writing on Tuchanka and Rannoch levels and Liara Romance, but they certainly drag it down. I see the Mass Effect series as being very similar to the Star Wars series. Overall, the series is great, but the high point was the middle installment with the other two about equal with their share of glaring faults (Return of the Jedi had some problems with its ending too...)

[Getorex]

Of COURSE I agree. I gave it a 3 at metacritic. Doesn't matter what you personally felt about it, the score at metacritic is deserved and real. MOST people hated the ending. The vast majority of the critics at metacritic mention the ending as THE major reason for the low score. It is a deserved low score and, personally, I feel the 8/10 of a point added to the score is too much. A flat 3 is just right.

[Getorex]

Gisle Aune wrote...

Wonderllama4 wrote...

User reviews are worth less than nothing

While professional reviewers' value can be measured in american dollars.

DING!  Absolutely correct.  No professional critic at any game site is trustworthy.  They score based on bling given by the producing company.  They FELLATE the developers and in return the developers toss bling their way.  Total crap.  User reviews are the only reviews that matter as they are the ones who BUY the game and play it.

[xsdob]

Getorex wrote...

Gisle Aune wrote...

Wonderllama4 wrote...

User reviews are worth less than nothing

While professional reviewers' value can be measured in american dollars. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

DING!  Absolutely correct.  No professional critic at any game site is trustworthy.  They score based on bling given by the producing company.  They FELLATE the developers and in return the developers toss bling their way.  Total crap.  User reviews are the only reviews that matter as they are the ones who BUY the game and play it.

So basically the both of them are all useless corrupt talking heads with no value whatsoever and you should just use your own judgement in whether a game is good or not.

Great advice, wish more people would remember it.

[Armass81]

Id give it a 7.9

Metacritic is full of trolls that give 0/10 out of spite. I wouldnt go there to get the truth.

[SalsaDMA]

Armass81 wrote...

Id give it a 7.9

Metacritic is full of trolls that give 0/10 out of spite. I wouldnt go there to get the truth.

funny.

So far the scores I've seen in metacritic actually panned out pretty close to what I would rate games as.

This includes the craptastic score for ME3.

Sometimes people here crack me up.

"Metacritic gives this game high, so it's a good game" then the next game comes along and the same person goes "Metacritic gives this game low, metacritic sucks and it's a good game..."

Riiiight... <_<

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 25 mai 2012 - 10:23 .

[WizenSlinky0]

It's fairly easy to get the actual score for a game (with some margin of error). Average the professional and user reviews and you'll likely get something close to what the game actually deserves.

Professionals rate way too high (in most cases) and users are prone to emotional outbursts that make them vote extremes.

[Shepard108278]

Getorex wrote...

Of COURSE I agree. I gave it a 3 at metacritic. Doesn't matter what you personally felt about it, the score at metacritic is deserved and real. MOST people hated the ending. The vast majority of the critics at metacritic mention the ending as THE major reason for the low score. It is a deserved low score and, personally, I feel the 8/10 of a point added to the score is too much. A flat 3 is just right.

Big shock there but alas I disagree. Ending included it is a 9/10.

[KotorEffect3]

xsdob wrote...

Review for the new rebellion dlc from metacritic.

"Not singleplayer" 0 score.

"Vorcha are stupid, breaks lore" 0 score.

"Pheonix class wasn't prothean" 0 score.

"I don't play multiplayer" 0 score.

"Gears is better" 0 score.

"I didn't get the character card I wanted from the first pack" 0 score.

"BIotic whip too awesome for a ****ty game like this" 0 score.

This is why user reviews are worthless and facepalm worthy.

[MegaBadExample]

ME3 was such a disappointing game, but even it doesn't deserve that low score.

I'd give it a 7.

I'd recommend people to wait and buy it half-price, or buy it second-hand.

[Ajx-]

I think it was lower then 3.8 before. It is increasing a little.

I'm not going to berate ME3 for the ending, it's been done enough. But wether or not you liked it, endings can make or break the experience for gamers. Especially when it's supposed to be a conclusion and the previous two titles handled thier endings much much better...


That being said, while the graphics did receive an upgrade, on the ps3 there are tons of fps issues and freezing problems. Techical issues aside, there was only one open world/market place to explore: the citadel. No omega, no tuchunka, or asari worlds. The whole experience felt too linear, no matter my import. Few, if any, significant choices alertered how the game played out. Lastly, the replay value for me3 is near zero for me.

Multiplayer kept me playing a little bit but not even rebellion or resurgence DLC will keep me playing online for much longer. But singleplayer? I don't even think I'll do another take through when the EC comes out. I can definitely see why people have flooded MC with bad reviews.

If anything it's karma from the overhwelming amount of positive reviews that did not do the consumer base justice. While I hate giving arbitrary ratings, it really was best an 8/10. The game didn't live up to the hype and it was a let down in many facets and if critics hadnt fluffed the rating, I feel like there would be less bitterness with fans...

[Getorex]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Interestingly enough, ME3 has a higher average on Metacritic for Xbox than the other platforms (5.0 as opposed to 4.0).

Draw whatever conclusion you will from that.

Easy.  Xbox gamers are into simplistic shoot and woosh.  They aren't into RPG.  They aren't into "story".  They want run and gun as that is what consoles are good for and nothing else.  The first two ME titles were very RPG/3rd person shooter.  ME3 was VERY weak on the RPG element and catered most particularly to the shooter crowd.  PERFECT for an xbox gamer but not for anyone else who came to the game for a good action story that they could be active in authoring.  Not and xbox strong suit.

The more Bioware aims for general simpleton audiences by going heavy on action, light on story/RPG, the lower the metacritic score will be while the higher the consoler/xboxer score will be.  An xbox is good for games that fit on ONE disk and don't contain enough (interesting and good) content to require a (gasp!) disk change.

[Shepard108278]

Getorex wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Interestingly enough, ME3 has a higher average on Metacritic for Xbox than the other platforms (5.0 as opposed to 4.0).

Draw whatever conclusion you will from that.

Easy.  Xbox gamers are into simplistic shoot and woosh.  They aren't into RPG.  They aren't into "story".  They want run and gun as that is what consoles are good for and nothing else.  The first two ME titles were very RPG/3rd person shooter.  ME3 was VERY weak on the RPG element and catered most particularly to the shooter crowd.  PERFECT for an xbox gamer but not for anyone else who came to the game for a good action story that they could be active in authoring.  Not and xbox strong suit.

The more Bioware aims for general simpleton audiences by going heavy on action, light on story/RPG, the lower the metacritic score will be while the higher the consoler/xboxer score will be.  An xbox is good for games that fit on ONE disk and don't contain enough (interesting and good) content to require a (gasp!) disk change.

WRONG! Mass Effect started on xbox and it does have good rpg's Fable, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim etc... so next gneralization please and ME 3 was still very much an rpg just like they promised IMO.

[The Edge]

Getorex wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Interestingly enough, ME3 has a higher average on Metacritic for Xbox than the other platforms (5.0 as opposed to 4.0).

Draw whatever conclusion you will from that.

Easy.  Xbox gamers are into simplistic shoot and woosh.  They aren't into RPG.  They aren't into "story".  They want run and gun as that is what consoles are good for and nothing else.  The first two ME titles were very RPG/3rd person shooter.  ME3 was VERY weak on the RPG element and catered most particularly to the shooter crowd.  PERFECT for an xbox gamer but not for anyone else who came to the game for a good action story that they could be active in authoring.  Not and xbox strong suit.

The more Bioware aims for general simpleton audiences by going heavy on action, light on story/RPG, the lower the metacritic score will be while the higher the consoler/xboxer score will be.  An xbox is good for games that fit on ONE disk and don't contain enough (interesting and good) content to require a (gasp!) disk change.

I love RPGs and I play them on xbox. Problem?

Also, do you play on PC or PS3? If the former, your statements make sense; if the latter, I don't see how it's that much different than xbox...